aweebluesoandso 290 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Ashley should never have signed his initial agreement stating he would keep his investment to below 10% and give an undertaking not to have influence in the board room. Recent actions and emails have proved he intends to break those undertakings , I am not in the least surprised he has been blocked for now , what he does next and what damage he inflicts on us , because it will be the club thats hit with sanctions not Ashley , will be interesting . All this from a man who intended to bring the whole weight of his legal team to bare on us if Somers didnt back his deal and reject King This is what keeps me guessing, I never thought Ashley really wanted to sell NUFC, he has had his troubles there and his detractors. But he has shown he doesn't give a proverbial Monkey's what they think, same with us. His selling Newcastle was a bluff imo, since they have been doing relatively well of late, even die hard Magpies have are caught up in a feel good factor. With us he was given a once in a lifetime opportunity by some Greenco time-share salesman he couldn't refuse, but the boycott and low season ticket sales forced him to show his hand and try and save the Hen that lays the golden eggs (sorry for the mixed metaphors here, i blame the Sherry trifle) Why else would he allow those rogues at the helm time and room to cause such utter devastation at the club? Maybe he does now want to own the whole shebang, but it looks like he took his eye off the ball to long and the damage is beyond repair, that and the SFA seeing an golden opportunity to kill us off once and for all. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 The rules are new anyway are they not. That's not the point GS. The point is that no one was jumping about when Romanov filled Hearts with Kaunas players and yet, if the Telegraph are to be believed, the possibility of Ashley sending up some Newcastle players was a major reason for the SFA decision against him increasing his stake. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 (edited) Edited by Pete Edited December 25, 2014 by pete 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 (edited) Edited by Pete Edited December 25, 2014 by pete 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Any evidence that was the last of the investment ? Or was it the initial investment with more to follow ? GS appears to think that was just the first tranche but not sure if he has evidence to support that; no doubt he will enlighten us. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 (edited) Ashley should never have signed his initial agreement stating he would keep his investment to below 10% and give an undertaking not to have influence in the board room. I doubt he had much choice, rbr. Getting the SFA up from 3% to to 10% was a major feat and he probably reckoned, that'll do for now. Allegedly it was an "informal" meeting but it seemed to produce a pretty formal decision and the precise reasons therefore must have been minuted and should be open top scrutiny. If I read the SFA Articles correctly, if it was a formal decison then he could Appeal and, given that the SFA Board are the normal Appellate Court so to speak, it would seem they would be obliged to refer to The Judicial Panel. It's not clear to me whether or not such an Appeal could only be on a point of procedure or if it it would effectively re-hear the application. In any event I don't see Ashley giving up without a fight. Edited December 25, 2014 by BrahimHemdani 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Think llambias would be good on the board for a while to rid ourselves of the waste of resources that has dogged us since admin...cant see him staying if ashley is blocked but any new board needs someone who watches the pennies and stops the rot. like paying pennies in the pound for merchandising rights? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 In a normal world, you would say that they might want to protect football clubs from another Romanov and Whyte scenario. This is not a normal world though and these people sure not work in the "best interest of the game". Else they would have drawn and quartered that chap who has interest in three clubs already - as this is not exactly "news". People may also point at FIFA and UEFA guidlelines and rules, but what have those institutions done with regards to massive investment by e.g. Gazprom and Red Bull thus far? Are we to expect that these companies just hand over their money and do not want anything bar ads in return? Especially RB? The main problem lies with the "club" status of the SFA. They - much like the SPL, SFL, or SPFL - can set up rules as they wish and anyone joining up with them will have to abide. It is obviously a very clever thing if you write some vague "in special cases special rules can be whipped up" clause in there and decide on somesuch ad hoc. If anything, Ashley and or the club can very well address the utter conflict of interest of the current SFA regime, given that it is made up of direct competitors in the Scottish game ... and it might very well not fall on deaf ears in some places. Yet, at the end of the day Rangers FC is a member of that "special rules club", not Ashley. So they can whip up all sorts of fanciful fines and even revoke the license if they see fit. At the end of the day, Scottish football survived without us up there ... if nothing more. Given that and the attitude of 2012 still very much lingering on, I have no doubt that they wouldn't mind trying their luck and go the full monty. Then you could sue the SFA and that would mean that all clubs would be barred from Europe. Such tactic should, in any case, had been used much earlier in the season though. UEFA would have looked upon that with scorn though ... but the unwanted publicity shed on the "impartial" SFA might have been helpful. For that you need characters with balls of steel though. And like it or not, there is only one - unwanted - shareholder with such an interest at Rangers these days. Whether he wants to do that is anyone's guess though. anyone can own all sorts of shareholdings in clubs the rules become problematic when "control" is exercised over the clubs who in the right mind believes that ashley does not exert control over the club right now? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrahimHemdani 1 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 anyone can own all sorts of shareholdings in clubs the rules become problematic when "control" is exercised over the clubs who in the right mind believes that ashley does not exert control over the club right now? Quite so; therefore what does it matter if he increases his actual shareholding? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhunter 0 Posted December 25, 2014 Share Posted December 25, 2014 Quite so; therefore what does it matter if he increases his actual shareholding? None. we are going to be punished by the very fact he does exert over control of 2 clubs and its against the rules. Remember we have a hearing for late January to administer the punishment. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.